Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Voltaire who wrote (58171)	12/30/1999 2:02:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 152472

volt, you are comparing apples to oranges. a $10 post split decline is not equal to a $10 presplit decline. the exposure is exactly the same. a $10 decline post split translates into a $40 decline presplit and the losses equal. well, in a rational market, anyway. it is quite an era when a company can increase its valuation 720% more than its entire valuation just 14 months ago. i see it popped another 300-400% before easing off. anybody buying now deserves what they get... be it good or bad.

To: Voltaire who wrote (58171)	12/30/1999 2:20:00 PM
From: puzzlecraft	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

A 4x percentage loss is 4x as worse, no arguing that. But, what about probabilities? Does a stocks splitting 4 for 1 become 4x as volatile: is this what you mean by "four times the exposure" even though the capital exposure is unchanged? Perhaps you are suggesting a time decay factor for volatility after a split? Without time decay, stocks that have split 2/1 a half dozen times (approx) since their IPO's (AOL, MSFT, CSCO, etc.) should be having 64x the volatility as initially. Obviously not the case: if you look at a long term logarithmic chart of any great growth stock, the fluctuations on a percentage basis have been rather constant over time.